Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 790 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
SeriousSam said:
"Proof of my cleanliness has been published in a peer-reviewed journal!" is good PR even with a scientifically illiterate public.

Exactly.
That's the 'end game' here. Simple message, that can be repeated often


Of course it worked out so well for Coyle and that Armstrong fellow.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Merckx index said:
Some good posts here, esp. Electress’ comments. However, while I generally agree that one wouldn’t think analysis of a single rider’s data would be published as a journal article, the fact that he’s a two time TDF winner and considered currently the dominant GT rider in the world (sorry, Flor) might be used to justify that, just as Coyle published an entire paper just on LA. And obviously this works to Froome’s advantage, as having his data published in a peer-reviewed journal could be used as “proof” that the data are both valid and consistent with being clean. So when the Esquire article comes out, whatever negative reactions to it there may be, Froome can reply, “these data were thought good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, when that comes out, you will see that all your criticisms are addressed.”
Exactly what I wrote

Dear Wiggo said:
Here's the main problem I have with the publishing of this data set in particular:

When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Good post, Dear Wiggo.
The person who wrote that article is not a journalist. He is an ex- journal editor. Shockingly, he thinks more power should go to the journal editor at the expense of peer reviewers when dealing with academic publishing. As noted yesterday, not really a good argument for changing the system.

Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years. In his last year at the journal he retreated to a 15th century palazzo in Venice to write a book. The book will be published by RSM Press [www.rsmpress.co.uk], and this is the second in a series of extracts that will be published in the JRSM.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,005
0
0
The key is whether CF is placed where he is on the chart based on what Brailsford told to the journalists at the time or what they interpreted his position to be based on his unremarkable palmares. "This graph is our approximation of Brailsford's rider analysis" is pretty open-ended and the text of the article does not clarify the issue.
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
The key is whether CF is placed where he is on the chart based on what Brailsford told to the journalists at the time or what they interpreted his position to be based on his unremarkable palmares. "This graph is our approximation of Brailsford's rider analysis" is pretty open-ended and the text of the article does not clarify the issue.
yeah but Froome is bottom of the class....when he should have been top :) ..you don't get it that wrong and Brailsford and/or froome (although probably Cound via twitter) would have corrected us at the time...but hey that was all pre-transformation...before he became what we 'see' before us...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.
 
Re: Re:

Savant12 said:
gillan1969 said:
Benotti69 said:
Savant12 said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Yes yes Froome had a 5.8W/kg FTP, 85 VO2 max and 24% efficiency but couldn't ride to save himself. Coz reasons.

Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.

Next.
Given your scientific analysis of Froome and with the results of "Coz reasons" can you elaborate further on your hypothesis of "couldn't ride to save himself"? Or shall we wait for some real scientists to analyse what they have been given [at this point we don't know all the details] and we we can comment on their findings at a later date?


"couldn't ride to save himself" = Brailsford asking Bruyneel did they want Froome?
or putting him bottom of the class....
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615
Maybe, Shane Sutton saw something that DB didn't.
“Shane Sutton is the least ‘numbers’ person you’ll get. He will work with a rider and he’ll see something that we can’t see. He’ll spot something and we’ll go and have a proper look at it and he’ll be right. It’s as if he’s watching colour television and we’re watching black and white. He doesn’t get that from numbers."
again...perhaps but then we would have heard about the genius of Sutton in September 2011...besides, what? he wasn't just bottom of the class based on numbers..he was bottom of the class based on everything...
 
Swart seems to be a well qualified standup exercise physiologist/scientist. I guess they should have got the other south african involved, although there is probably too much antagonism there. I don't know why he's bothered doing it, he won't change the doubters minds so it pretty pointless. He should just keep stum like the rest of them.
 
Re:

bigcog said:
Swart seems to be a well qualified standup exercise physiologist/scientist. I guess they should have got the other south african involved, although there is probably too much antagonism there. I don't know why he's bothered doing it, he won't change the doubters minds so it pretty pointless. He should just keep stum like the rest of them.
Perhaps explain why he is 'well qualified'?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

Savant12 said:
Maybe, Shane Sutton saw something that DB didn't.
“Shane Sutton is the least ‘numbers’ person you’ll get. He will work with a rider and he’ll see something that we can’t see. He’ll spot something and we’ll go and have a proper look at it and he’ll be right. It’s as if he’s watching colour television and we’re watching black and white. He doesn’t get that from numbers."
Well if Sutton saw something, Sky failed to get that 'something' out what Sutton is alleged to have seen and were trying to offload Froome to Bruyneel. And Bruyneel said no thanks!

Froome was Sky's best cyclist from Vuelta'11 and yet Wiggins was team leader. Why was that? To cash in on Wiggins? Or Sky were not sure Froome's 'something ' would last?
 
I thought teams who "see things" were vastly inferior to Sky's scientific approach where they measure and know everything, because data is what wins races and feelings are outdated?
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Perhaps explain why he is 'well qualified'?
He has a Masters in Sports Medicine and a PhD in Exercise physiology. Faculty member at the Univ of Cape Town. He has published 22 papers, many of which involve cycling physiology. He is not particularly senior, considering that his PhD was awarded in 2012, but seems like a strong CV.
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
The key is whether CF is placed where he is on the chart based on what Brailsford told to the journalists at the time or what they interpreted his position to be based on his unremarkable palmares. "This graph is our approximation of Brailsford's rider analysis" is pretty open-ended and the text of the article does not clarify the issue.
These are fair points but it's also worth noting the lack of mention of Froome in Brailsford's comments which do in fact list those which he views have potential. You're sitting on this freak of genetics apparently and don't mention it? Hard to believe.

Couple with the fact that no one ever mentioned him in this way anywhere before September 2011 and you can feel the chart is probably fairly accurate. No one was trying to slag Froome at that point. No one knew who the *** he was.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.
Nailed it.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
These are fair points but it's also worth noting the lack of mention of Froome in Brailsford's comments which do in fact list those which he views have potential. You're sitting on this freak of genetics apparently and don't mention it? Hard to believe.

Couple with the fact that no one ever mentioned him in this way anywhere before September 2011 and you can feel the chart is probably fairly accurate. No one was trying to slag Froome at that point. No one knew who the **** he was.
Yes, that is the most likely interpretation. The fact that he was likely out of contract in a few months despite his youth suggests as much. My comment was more in reference to this not being a smoking gun for Brailsford lying about thinking Froome had potential in 2011, when we are not sure how the chart came into being. Of course, there are plenty of other things to nail him on.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
djpbaltimore said:
The key is whether CF is placed where he is on the chart based on what Brailsford told to the journalists at the time or what they interpreted his position to be based on his unremarkable palmares. "This graph is our approximation of Brailsford's rider analysis" is pretty open-ended and the text of the article does not clarify the issue.
yeah but Froome is bottom of the class....when he should have been top :) ..you don't get it that wrong and Brailsford and/or froome (although probably Cound via twitter) would have corrected us at the time...but hey that was all pre-transformation...before he became what we 'see' before us...
Considering the context of the article, Brailsford was telling the reporter the reasons why his master tactician skills will result in Sky performing well. DB had earmarked EBH as the next Valverde and of course Froome wasn’t even ranked as a dom. He was going to be pro-conti and likely to lose his contract.

Fast forward two years later and the master plan was the worse rider overnight became the best climber and TT’er in the world and EBH couldn’t win a race to save himself.
 
Jul 20, 2015
109
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
.Froomestrong. said:
Dear Wiggo said:
.Froomestrong. said:
Im not sure if youre missing the point intentionally, or if youre just having some sort of comprehension issue.
Right back at you. I'll type this really slowly to help.

2011 Vuelta - now: 6.1W/kg easy
2007 WCC - pre-2011 Vuelta: ???

.Froomestrong. said:
As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.
If it's 5.8 - 6.1W/kg as you suggest, then how the hell are they going to explain that every team he was on and every race he entered he was utter crap?

.Froomestrong. said:
If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.
I am not nor have I ever said "why did they hire him". I am saying "why was he so sht?"
1. I suggest no such thing. Ever. Anywhere. Further, Ive already said- repeatedly- that his transformation is absurd. Not credible. Further, Ive even given my opinion on what compounds he used to make this transformation...so stop making **** up.
2. Look at the bold. Who is "they"? Unless "they" is Froome, WTF are you talking about?

To be honest, I dont really care what your glitch is. Ive got anything better to do this evening, than to argue semantics on a forum. lulz
1. I quoted your post right there, [ETA hoping] that very thing. You did write "I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine". So no, it was not a suggestion, it was a hope. This seems a minor quibble given the resulting numbers required are the same.

What's a major engine for you? 5W/kg? 5.5W/kg? The NRS guys are a dime a dozen in a tiny little country of 23M people and they put out 5.0 - 5.5 W/kg @ FTP no worries. If he was 5W/kg, that's not only not a "major engine", but how did he improve 20% to 6W/kg?

So what is a "major engine" for you?

2. "They" are the entire group of people - scientists, UCI/WCC, Froome and yes, even Team Sky, who are either employing this freak of nature, or testing and analysing him and his physiology.

I thought this was obvious.
Right, so I never made any such suggestion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Instead, in what was likely some flakey, beer fueled keyboard flurry, you decide that a tongue in cheek comment about "hoping" his power progression was linear, was instead some defense of his w/kg.
It was not, as I made sure to mention, repeatedly.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Re: Re:

Considering the context of the article, Brailsford was telling the reporter the reasons why his master tactician skills will result in Sky performing well. DB had earmarked EBH as the next Valverde and of course Froome wasn’t even ranked as a dom. He was going to be pro-conti and likely to lose his contract.

Fast forward two years later and the master plan was the worse rider overnight became the best climber and TT’er in the world and EBH couldn’t win a race to save himself.
If this was written 200 years ago, the conclusion would be: Vroom sucked Edvald's lifepower!
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Yes, that is the most likely interpretation. The fact that he was likely out of contract in a few months despite his youth suggests as much. My comment was more in reference to this not being a smoking gun for Brailsford lying about thinking Froome had potential in 2011, when we are not sure how the chart came into being. Of course, there are plenty of other things to nail him on.
Yeah, I don't really see it that way. First, I don't recall seeing that little qualifier on the chart when it first came out, but more to the point, the chart is clearly accurate regarding all the other riders and how Brailsford discusses them. The fact that he doesn't even mention Froome is clearly a smoking gun. He wasn't even going to be on the Vuelta team in 2011 but someone else scratched. How does a guy not even going to make the team ride like that? Clearly if Brailsford thought he was worth a darn he'd have been available and riding in that race.

Basically all of the statements, or rather lack of statements about Froome pre Vuelta 2011 are completely consistent with him being a nobody, which he was. All the statements afterwards are completely consistent with a team trying to explain the unexplainable.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

.Froomestrong. said:
Right, so I never made any such suggestion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Instead, in what was likely some flakey, beer fueled keyboard flurry, you decide that a tongue in cheek comment about "hoping" his power progression was linear, was instead some defense of his w/kg.
It was not, as I made sure to mention, repeatedly.
I noticed you very quickly ignore very simple questions. Easier to insert personal attacks yeah?

Still not comfortable in stating a W/kg?

Telling.

Whilst the word you wrote, was "hope" -- it is an implied suggestion of what his power was / is that you hope will be revealed, allowing you to be a fan again.

I am sorry you want to believe.
 
Jul 20, 2015
109
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
.Froomestrong. said:
Right, so I never made any such suggestion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Instead, in what was likely some flakey, beer fueled keyboard flurry, you decide that a tongue in cheek comment about "hoping" his power progression was linear, was instead some defense of his w/kg.
It was not, as I made sure to mention, repeatedly.
I noticed you very quickly ignore very simple questions. Easier to insert personal attacks yeah?

Still not comfortable in stating a W/kg?

Telling.

Whilst the word you wrote, was "hope" -- it is an implied suggestion of what his power was / is that you hope will be revealed, allowing you to be a fan again.

I am sorry you want to believe.
Tongue in cheek, dude. Really, you cant be this daft.

How about this, since youve missed it the other 10 times Ive said it:
I THINK FROOME IS DOPED. NO WAY HE IS CLEAN, AT ALL.

I didnt imply anything. You did, and now youre digging yourself a deep hole asking about w/kg? lmaowtfbbq?!?!?!
Now go home and get your shinebox.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
thehog said:
Perhaps explain why he is 'well qualified'?
He has a Masters in Sports Medicine and a PhD in Exercise physiology. Faculty member at the Univ of Cape Town. He has published 22 papers, many of which involve cycling physiology. He is not particularly senior, considering that his PhD was awarded in 2012, but seems like a strong CV.
Yet he never heard of fred Grappe :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts